Numerous tasks for the Assembly and the Government in the fight against corruption
Recommendations for the Assembly and the Government
Transparency - Serbia (part of the Transparency International) today have presented recommendations for the new Government and the Assembly which derived from the study "National Integrity System"[1]. From a total of 146 recommendations, even 44 are related to the National Assembly and 57 to the Government of Serbia, whose establishment is expected soon.
Based on this "snapshot" of institutions and sectors which should contribute to the fight against corruption, it arises that the priority is to increase transparency of decision-making, especially at the executive power level, in connection with the conclusion of contracts, a cost-benefit analysis, monitoring, lobbying and appointment of the management of state owned enterprises. Politicization has been observed as a big problem that affects the public sector, and therefore it is necessary to finally implement the provisions of the Law on Civil Servants and the Law on Public Enterprises, which were aimed at professionalization of management.
When it comes to identifying, prosecuting and punishing corruption, it was pointed out to the necessity to strengthen the independence and accountability of the judiciary, to create conditions for free and non-selective work of prosecution and police, but also the introduction of measures to increase the number of reported cases of corruption, such as the proactive investigations of corruption and promotion of examples of investigations based on the testimonies of whistleblowers.
Independent state authorities must get stronger support, whereby one of the first tasks of the Assembly is review of their annual reports and use of these reports for supervision over the executive power, and specially the report of the Anti-Corruption Agency on implementation of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy which was adopted by the National Assembly. One of pending activities of this strategy is the introduction of practice of drafting and reviewing the analysis of corruption risks in regulations and impact assessment of anti-corruption legislation and strategies.
Taking into account the importance of public control, it is necessary to create conditions in which media will be able to work with less pressure and influence from political and economic centres of power, and implementation of existing media laws, but also "filling holes" (e.g. in connection with the state advertising), plays a major role.
What are assessments of the National Integrity System?
Researches on the national integrity system are conducting according to the methodology of the Transparency International and represent the basis of a holistic approach in the fight against corruption which TI represents more than 20 years. In fact, the fight against corruption can be successful only if all relevant institutions and sectors of society exist and properly functioning and participating in it. System will function as good as its weakest link.
Also, in the context of this research, legal framework and its implementation in terms of the capacity of institutions and sectors (what resources they have and how independent they are), management system and procedures with emphasis on three basic elements - transparency, accountability and integrity, and specific role played by certain institution or sector should play in the system of national integrity are estimating.
"Assessment of the National Integrity System" is not evaluation of corruption, neither evaluation of efforts of individual institutions. Through the findings of this research, firstly can be perceived the potential of "pillars” (state institutions and sectors of society) to fulfil their role in the fight against corruption and to resist corruption. This potential depends on the actors of the sector, but also of the external factors – e.g. success of all pillars of society in the fight against corruption depends on the Government, which propose and implement laws and the Assembly which adopt this legislation.
Main findings of the research on Serbia for 2015
This research has confirmed that there is a large gap between the quality of legislation and its implementation. Distribution of power has led that Serbia in the reporting period (2012 to 2015) has a stable Government, less vulnerable than ever through political influences. On the other hand, this concentration of power has resulted in a weaker parliamentary control and supervision.
In such circumstances, the importance of institutions that monitor the executive branch, such as independent state bodies which have a role in the fight against corruption, civil society organizations and media becomes even greater. However, their abilities to perform this task are limited. Although most independent authorities received more resources in recent years and increased the scope of its work, legal powers are still insufficient to fully fulfil this mission. Failure of the executive and legislative power to improve the legal framework and to address the problems identified in the annual reports of these institutions is an indication of lack of political will to improve the system for suppression of corruption.
In July 2013, the new National Anti-Corruption Strategy has been adopted. However, only 16% of tasks envisaged by the Action Plan for the implementation of the Strategy were fulfilled in a timely and appropriate manner in the first year of implementation, and this trend has continued in the next year. Some of tasks from the Action Plan for the implementation of the Strategy have been postponed by the Action Plan for the Chapter 23.
Serbia is far from using the process of the European integration for the establishment of an effective and sustainable system for the fight against corruption. There have been some positive results of this process and the fact that the EU monitor reforms, but even more benefit from that side can be expected by 2020 (to strengthen the position of independent bodies, insisting on a proactive approach in the fight against corruption, etc.). However, the process of the EU integration has serious limitations, and in addition it is also misused. When Serbia circumventing its own rules for public procurement within the framework of international agreements, criticism is absent because the European Commission has no Acquis on which it could be called upon in such a case; when civil society organizations from Serbia are asking for changes of some regulation in the public debate, ministries sometimes react that text has already been "agreed with Brussels."
There has been certain progress in some areas compared to similar previous studies (e,g, independence, transparency and accountability of the Anti-Corruption Agency, independence of the executive power, responsibility of political parties and judiciary, transparency of the legislative power), but in most cases the assessment of the current state is the same as it was in 2011.
Serbia has adopted the most important anti-corruption legislation and established institutions for the fight against corruption and for its prevention. However, in the meantime, the practice has revealed that some legislation needs to be changed. Some institutions were obstructed in their work, ignored or they do not have enough resources.
Legislative power does not use its independence and control mechanisms at its disposal. Instead, it largely follows the Government's policy. Reports of independent bodies are discussed in the Assembly, but the implementation of recommendations is not monitored.
Executive power has a higher level of independence than before - there is concentration of real political power. Government is declaratively committed to reform of the public sector, but it is still strongly politicized. It is undisputed that the Government is publicly committed to the fight corruption, but the results are limited.
Independence of judiciary is endangered by interference of other branches of power and political party representatives. Most of mechanisms for ensuring the integrity of holders of judicial functions are functioning. Trials in some of the biggest corruption cases take a very long time.
Public sector continues to be politicized. Adequate level of transparency is not provided. Law on the protection of whistleblowers has not brought significant changes. Reform of the public sector from 2014, initiated due to budgetary constraints and announcement of the new policy did not result in significant changes.
Institutional supervision over the work of state-owned enterprises is inefficient and non-transparent.
Rules regarding public procurement are not always implementing, and competition in procedures is small.
Independence of police is threatened by the politicization of investigations, ad hoc investigative teams for cases determined by politicians as a priority and determination of human resources by political parties. Police integrity is severely compromised by scandals that have "leaked" to media, due to the fact that there was no public reaction to published allegations (denial or fast investigation).
Public Prosecution is still facing with censorship and political influence. There is a legal basis for the effective prosecution of corruption, and number of indictments for corruption grows. However, it is still far below the actual level of spreading of corruption. Reasons are insufficient use of proactive measures by the prosecution and insufficiently persuasive calls to citizens to report corruption.
Republic Electoral Commission is not an independent state body, but the body of unclear legal nature composed of representatives of political parties. Nevertheless, thanks to inter-party control, REC mainly ensures the implementation of fair elections, and it does not have other jurisdiction.
Ombudsman acts independently of the executive power, but there are attempts to be drawn into the political debate or to politicize its reports. Work of the Ombudsman is transparent and results are visible.
Resources of the State Audit Institution have improved, but the capacity is still far from enough to perform all the competences, in particular revisions of expediency.Impression is that DRI acts independently in practice. Transparency of DRI has improved, but criteria on the basis of which the selection of audit subjects is not public. DRI filed criminal and misdemeanour charges for irregularities detected during the audit.
Anti-Corruption Agency has no adequate resources and faces obstruction in attempts for creation of amendments to the law which would provide it with greater powers in the area of control. Agency is dedicated to prevention, where legislative changes are also needed, in line with the Strategy, tin order that the Agency's activities bring greater results.
Transparency of financial operations of political parties has increased due to implementation of legislation. Most parties are functioning on the principle of centralized leadership, in which decisions are made by the President with close associates. Fight against corruption is a major topic of political campaigns, but there is no real commitment to suppress corruption.
Media are strongly influenced by political and economic power centres and advertisers, who are also connected with the centres of political decision-making. Reporting on corruption is mainly based on the transmission of press releases and statements of state authorities and police or data which "leaks" from investigations.
Civil society organizations are numerous, but just few have adequate capacities for systematically engagement in reforms of public policies and the fight against corruption. Rules on financing CSOs from public sources are improved, but not respected in all cases. There are no comprehensive and accurate data on the level of budgetary support for CSOs.
Business sector is characterized by immense differences between regulations and practices. Legal uncertainty and unequal implementation of laws, as well as the unpredictable policy of changes of various taxes and levies are forms of unwanted state interference in the business sector. Business sector is not sufficiently active in initiating the authorities in anti-corruption actions, and also does not provide support for anti-corruption efforts of civil society.
Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection has been recognized by activities in the fight against corruption, especially through raising public awareness about the importance of free access to information for prevention of corruption. There was no attempt to interfere in the work of the Commissioner, except for the occasional verbal attacks on leaders of this institution.
State owned enterprises are practically under the control of political parties. Often they are violating the rules related to publicity of work, but also the provisions of other laws - on public procurement and accounting.
According to estimations for 2015, in general, the best situation is reached within the independent state authorities (the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection, the Ombudsman and the State Audit Institution), despite the fact that their resources are still largely insufficient. Within six pillars, even half of standards observed in this research have not been reached. Such situation is in terms of anti-corruption potential of the National Assembly, media, business sector and public sector, while at the very bottom are unreformed state owned enterprises, for which it have been found that they are susceptible to corruption, and the Republic Electoral Commission, which, contrary to standards of this research, is functioning as a party, not as an independent body.
[1] Within the project "Strengthening National Integrity System in the Western Balkans and Turkey, as well as monitoring developments in the fight against corruption" which is being implemented with the support of the European Union. Presented views are the sole responsibility of Transparency Serbia and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.
